Arctic Connections: policy framework evaluation

Challenges and issues

Introduction

The Arctic Connections Policy Framework (ACPF) and the Arctic Connections Fund (ACF) have achieved a great deal of successes and facilitated networking at senior strategic level and also operationally, through funded projects. The ACPF was very ambitious in terms of its objectives and the programme of work it delivered. It was also innovative and forward thinking, as the first Arctic Policy for Scotland.

Given the scale and ambition of the ACPF, and the fact that it was the first of its kind, it is not surprising that there were some challenges that should be considered, and some issues to learn from to inform any future work in this area. This chapter examines these, first for the ACF, and then for the ACPF.

The Arctic Connections Policy Framework

Despite the successes of the ACPF, there were some challenges in its implementation and the sustainability of the achievements. This section examines these challenges and how they have impacted on delivery.

Geographic coverage

There was some confusion at project level and strategically between what is Nordic and what is Arctic and some ACF applications were more Nordic in scope rather than Arctic. For example, where an applicant proposed partnering organisations in more southerly parts of Nordic countries that do not fall within the scope of the Arctic.

Understanding Arctic governance

A number of interviewees noted that a greater consideration of the Arctic region should have been undertaken before the Framework was developed and implemented. The following quotes from Scottish Government interviewees illustrate this finding:

“We didn’t invest in understanding how the Arctic region space is governed and the complex map of interests.

“There are some serious political actors, and we should have mapped and understood governance better.”

“[We] did good work but scratched the surface and were not really engaged with how the region runs.”

A clearer understanding of who the key political and institutional actors are in the Arctic would have enabled earlier and more intentional diplomatic engagement. By identifying the most relevant ministries, regional governments, indigenous organisations and multilateral bodies, Scotland could have directed its outreach toward partners with genuine influence in the governance of the Arctic. This would have allowed for more targeted relationship-building, more opportunities for bilateral dialogue, and a stronger presence within established diplomatic networks.

Shifting budgets and priorities

Reduced budgets, competing policy pressures with a shift towards more domestic matters, and the need to prioritise core services required the Scottish Government to scale back its Arctic focus and manage expectations among domestic and international partners. However, interviewees from the Scottish Government believe that there is still an interest in strategic involvement in the Arctic and with Arctic nations through a specific policy.

Despite the framework delivering valuable soft power, particularly through climate-related engagement linked to COP, these activities increasingly came to be viewed as desirable rather than essential. At the same time, the Arctic region struggled to demonstrate clear economic or trade benefits for Scotland, particularly given the country’s already strong relationships with the United States and the Nordic nations. Several policy objectives, such as cultural exchange and work with dispersed populations, which fell into the ACPF, have shifted towards other strategies which are focused on Canada, the United States and the Nordic region. While this ensures continuity of key policy themes, it also contributes to a sense that Scotland’s Arctic-specific engagement has become less central.

Given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Russian presence in the Arctic, the context in terms of Scotland’s priorities has shifted to focusing more on security and tensions in the region. This was mentioned by a number of Scottish Government interviewees and as one reported:

“The Arctic is now a high-tension area, which it wasn’t when the ACPF first launched.”

This was compounded by growing competition over Arctic shipping routes and resources, and heightened security concerns, which have shifted the focus to areas that largely fall under UK Government responsibility. Scotland’s role has naturally shifted, reflecting a complex balance of political, economic and strategic pressures. The following interview quote sums this up:

“Just look at interest in the region now, massive geopolitical insecurity, shipping lanes, resource competition, terrorism and sabotage, so how can we shape UK Government policy, as this is now probably a UK Government space.”

Despite significant political upheaval and global crises, including Brexit, financial shocks, the COVID-19 pandemic, and international conflict, the ACPF demonstrated remarkable resilience. The framework remained operational throughout this turbulent period, continuing to support Scotland’s international engagement, facilitate collaboration, and provide access to networks and intelligence. Its stability and adaptability allowed Scotland to maintain a presence in Arctic affairs and exercise soft power even when many other initiatives faced disruption.

Summary

Arctic governance and implementation: A clearer understanding of Arctic governance structures and key political actors could have enabled more targeted engagement and relationship-building. Interviewees noted that early mapping of ministries, regional governments, indigenous organisations, and multilateral bodies would have strengthened Scotland’s diplomatic positioning,increased the effectiveness of the Framework and allowed for more integrated diplomacy.

Political priorities: Shifting priorities and budget constraints meant that the focus of Arctic policy declined. Domestic pressures, reduced budgets, and geopolitical changes (e.g. full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Arctic security tensions) all negatively impacted on Scotland’s Arctic engagement.

Arctic Connection Fund: issues and challenges

There were several issues and challenges with the ACF process and delivery which fund recipients and Scottish Government representatives suggested may have lessened project impacts. For example, complexity surrounding the processes and subject matter of the ACF have potentially worked to enforce a bias towards certain types of applicants such as academic institutions. There were also challenges surrounding the logistics of delivering Arctic work within the fund timescales, with others suggesting that a lack of support from the Scottish Government throughout the project lifespans may have reduced impacts and caused networking and development opportunities to be missed.

Application process and lack of applicant diversity

Some fund recipients felt that the level of paperwork and admin required for the ACF application process was overly onerous, and ‘excessive’, particularly in relation to the comparatively small size of the grants available. One ACF recipient had a member of staff with experience in writing long-form bids in an academic setting. They suggested that without this member of staff, they would not have seen the fund as a viable option to bid for, with another voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) fund recipients stating that the application was ‘administratively demanding’, and they struggled with the economic forecasting data, for example. Another recipient interviewed during the research noted that:

“The application is very difficult – this is the most paperwork heavy of any grants received, worse than any European funding applications.”

Challenges with the grant application process were also mentioned by other recipients, such as those from academic organisations. For some, this meant that the size of the application could have discouraged or acted as a barrier to third sector organisations. This is supported by the high response rate from (and funding awards to) academic institutions, and comparatively low responses from the voluntary sector: only one in ten projects were led by VCSEs, with 71% of these being led by academic partners, illustrating a potential bias towards academic applicants.

This is also reflected in the Scottish Government survey of grant recipients, where addressing a complex and burdensome application process was the most commonly cited suggestion for improving the grant for future applicants. Streamlining the grant application process will be an important consideration for any future initiatives. This is particularly relevant in order to encourage applications from all types of applicants, including third sector organisations, who might not have the capacity or experience to deal with complex proposal writing. As a Scottish Government interviewee noted;

“Funding tended to go to research-type projects despite the [Arctic] team trying to nudge more organisations in the community space to apply.”

Survey respondents were asked if they had continued to work on Arctic related issues following project completion. While the vast majority confirmed that they had, the two organisations that had not are arts and culture-focused organisations, one of which has charitable status. These were also the only two respondent organisations that were not either universities, or organisations with a core focus on Arctic work, further suggesting that the ACF was less accessible to non-academic organisations.

As well as potential bias towards academic, and other research led organisations, some recipients suggested that smaller organisations were particularly disadvantaged. It was noted that larger institutions and organisations were better equipped to manage these requirements due to their size. It was felt amongst some that the effort required was disproportionate to the funding amount, summed up by the following comments from recipients:

“It was very onerous, it was a small opportunity cost for a smaller organisation, it was a large investment of time.”

“It was an intensive application for how little money it was. We have similar applications for €1.5 million, whereas the ACF grant was only £8,000.”

A Scottish Government interviewee also recognised that academic organisations were over-represented in the fund, both in lead organisations and partnering organisations, where this could have been aimed more towards third sector organisations. They suggested that universities could have brought in third sector partners to bids, instead of other universities or private sector/industry partners who have numerous other mechanisms to access funding and said that:

“The reality for a small charity or social enterprise is that the application and reporting is likely to be daunting and over-onerous.”

Lack of follow-on support

As well as a lack of engagement throughout the application process, fund recipients felt there was a lack of follow-on support from the Scottish Government, both in terms of facilitating engagement between guarantors and promoting project outputs. This could have both helped recipients to continue their Arctic work and presented networking opportunities between project partners, potentially generating further opportunities for Arctic work and strengthening the network of Scottish stakeholders. One project beneficiary interviewed had wanted the opportunity to collaborate with other funded projects to further increase reach and profile. In particular, they identified the Polar Academy’s summer exchange programme as something that aligned well with their project, and one they would have liked the opportunity to collaborate on through the Scottish Arctic Network (SCAN) and other relevant programmes.

Another funding recipient reiterated this need for further follow-on support, suggesting that the Scottish Government should support projects to attend and participate in Arctic conferences and events following completion to boost Scotland’s profile. This was also reflected in the Scottish Government’s survey of grant recipients. When asked if they had any suggestions for improving the grant application or reporting processes, fund recipients suggested follow-on meetings or events for grant recipients for networking purposes. Such support may have helped projects to cement relationships or better identify related or follow-on activity beyond the lifespan of the funded projects.

Understanding of the Arctic region

There was a degree of confusion amongst Fund applicants who were not clear on what constituted as ‘Arctic’ with some Scottish projects looking for partners that were not in the Arctic. One Scottish Government interviewee noted having to explain the geography of Nordic countries to applicants as there are only three which fall within the Arctic Circle, and even then, it is only some parts of these countries.

This is recognised by other Scottish Government interviewees, with one suggesting that there potentially should have been further information sessions before the fund closing date. Despite two sessions before each round of the funding which presented the opportunity for applicants to ask questions about the fund, this was felt to have been lacking. Some applications were missing important information because they weren’t present for the sessions. It was felt that a session that covered a run-through of the application form and finance documents needed would have been helpful. Some recipients also reflected this lack of application support, noting a lack of direct engagement with the Scottish Government throughout this process, and a desire to engage further with discussions around fund outcomes.

These reports contrast with other fund recipients accounts (as discussed in Chapter 4) which are highly positive about the Scottish Government’s application process and fund management. It is clear that fund applicants had different experiences with the ACF application process, and the Scottish Government’s communication and management throughout funding. For example, some non-academic organisations had suggested that the application process was overly onerous, and favoured academic applications. Other non-academic applicants, whose work wasn’t generally in the Arctic, had not been able to continue Arctic work following the end of funding. In line with this, it will be important for any future developments to be cognisant of the different challenges faced by different organisations, and provide support to help organisations overcome barriers. This is particularly relevant in order to encourage applications from a greater range of organisation types, this will improve the diversity of projects and expand the potential impacts.

Budget concerns and logistics in remote locations

The geographic challenges intersect with cultural differences to present challenges. One recipient referenced having to pause the project for a number of weeks due to the Arctic partner’s weather improving, presenting the opportunity to go and hunt for food. However, they also recognised that this had the positive effect of adding to their understanding of indigenous culture and said:

“We had to have a big pause because the artist was going on a big hunting trip which caused a delay for weeks at a time – this actually was very helpful as it helped understanding of the other culture."

Others suggested that it was very difficult to conduct any work with the Arctic partners during winter, noting complete lack of communication with partners for weeks at a time due to weather, rurality and lack of internet connection. In some cases, there would be a death in the community – which would then go into a period of mourning, which would also cause communication to drop off for weeks at a time. Academic funding recipients also suggested that the funding timeline was not well aligned to the academic schedule. With applications in October, and funding needing to be spent by March, this conflicts with the entire academic schedule. This highlights a broader point about the over-emphasis on academic partners: if the Fund aims to encourage greater participation from cultural or third-sector organisations, consideration of project timelines that are accessible beyond the academic year could help broaden participation and make the Fund more inclusive.

Some recipients as well as Scottish Government interviewees reported that implementation was constrained by the small size of the Fund, short delivery windows, and seasonal challenges, particularly the difficulty of conducting Arctic fieldwork during winter months. As one recipient noted:

“The project experienced long-delays as there are very few contacts in the regions available to us, and timings and availability for sessions which would have been easily fixed in an urban setting was a lot harder in rural settings due to the Arctic winter.”

Project timelines will be an important consideration for any potential funding for Arctic projects and development. Despite some cases where challenges supported understanding of cultural differences, conducting projects throughout the Arctic summer months would likely cause fewer challenges with weather and internet connectivity. This will also improve the ability for academic organisations to deliver projects in line with other responsibilities.

Summary

ACF-specific issues, budget, and logistical constraints: The ACF faced challenges that affected project accessibility, delivery, and impact. The application process was considered complex and administratively burdensome, particularly for smaller organisations and non-academic applicants, contributing to a bias towards academic institutions (71% of projects led by universities, only 10% by VCSEs). Short delivery windows, small grant sizes, and timing misaligned with academic schedules limited engagement, especially in Arctic winter months when connectivity and partner availability were constrained. Seasonal interruptions, remote locations, and cultural practices sometimes caused delays, though they also provided opportunities for cultural understanding. Recipients also noted limited follow-on support from the Scottish Government, which reduced networking, collaboration, and sustained engagement opportunities.

Legacy

The evaluation considered the legacy of the ACPF within the changed geo-political and domestic context. There was clear agreement amongst interviewees that without strategic, Arctic direction, ACF funding, and a team to manage and drive it, the legacy of the work and achievements of the ACPF will diminish over time. There is a view that this decline has already started. There were some views amongst Scottish Government interviewees that Scotland is losing its visibility amongst Arctic nations and regions and is, as one put it:

“Losing its place at the table.”

Some recipients expressed concern that without renewed commitment and investment, Scotland will lose many high level and hard-won international relationships in what is seen as an increasingly competitive and geopolitically sensitive region. While other nations are increasing their presence and influence in the region, Scotland is seen as stepping back and this is viewed as a lost opportunity.

There is a strong sense amongst some interviewees that if Scotland wants to continue to position itself as an Arctic nation and be at the centre of finding solutions to shared problems, there must a sustained and specific Arctic policy with resources to back it up. Interviewees report that the continuation of a policy that is specifically about the Arctic and Arctic themes is essential if Scottish organisations and the Scottish Government is to enhance its access to foreign, senior-level politicians and civil servants. This is illustrated by the following comments:

“If Scotland wants to set itself as an Arctic nation, it needs to sustain these initiatives. Can't say ‘we did this for three years’ and then change.”

“It is important and makes us distinct…it is a unique opportunity as a country to leverage our connections with our neighbours; every country is doing it, Norway, Canada, a lot of Arctic work is being done.”

Leveraging Scotland’s proximity to the Arctic – and commonalities with many Arctic communities – in this way is seen as a key advantage in international relations that cannot be replicated through other policies or strategies.

Of the ACF recipients who responded to the Scottish Government survey, the majority had continued to work on Arctic issues following the end of their project. However, the only two respondents who weren’t academic partners, or those who work specifically in the Arctic, both confirmed that they had not continued their Arctic work following the end of funding. This suggests that without continued funding, Arctic relationships outside of academia may not develop or persist to the same extent, and Scotland could miss out on any potential benefits from this, such as economic partnerships.

As noted previously, Scotland’s legacy could have been better sustained if, through the ACPF, there had been more time and investment in understanding how the Arctic region is governed, how the eight Arctic countries are governed, and the key political actors to engage with. By mapping governance and undertaking a detailed analysis of the avenues of influence, there would be a greater legacy, and the impacts would have been more strategic, impactful and sustained. This is summed up by the following comment from a Scottish Government interviewee:

“We were not sophisticated in our engagement which has meant a more limited legacy.”

Summary

Legacy and sustainability: There is consensus that the ACPF’s legacy is at risk without continued strategic Arctic focus and investment. While many ACF recipients continued Arctic work post-funding, this was largely limited to academic partners. Non-academic organisations were less able to sustain engagement. Some interviewees emphasised that continued funding, policy focus, and dedicated resources are essential to maintain Scotland’s visibility, relationships, and influence in Arctic regions. Opportunities exist to strengthen long-term impact through improved governance mapping, sustained engagement, and strategic follow-on support.